Ok, this is just total theorycrafting because ive been arguing with some mates after the Thorpe quitting her party story broke.

So the arguement started with, is she really still elected. I dont actually know the numbers of people voting below the line vs above the line, but i am convinced that most of Australia already just vote for the party in the senate, and dont actually look at the senators at all. So in that case, i would propose we eliminate the below the line voting entirely. You are ONLY voting for a party, not a senator.

When the senate paper comes out, everyone just rank choice votes between all the parties (idependants are just parties of 1) and then that party decides who gets to be a senator. Thats basically how it currently works anyway (i think i dont have the numbers about how many vote above the line but id be willing to assume its a LOT), so this would just remove the pretense.

Secondly, we then introduce legistation that people may register as an official member of any political parties. Those parties engage with their memebers and put forward a crop of "senators" who the active members then rank by who they want to see as a senator.Maybe the highest ranked one gets to be leader? Still not sure how a leader would be elected.

Then, when something like this happens and a memeber feels they must leave the party, then party can replace that person with the next most popular person on the list.

And maybe if you want to remove a party member the leader can call for a vote of those "official members" if that person keeps voting against the party line. That would give the person a chance to convince the rest of those voters that them voting against the party line is correct and they should be allowed to continue to do so.

In the thorpe situation, it would mean she could either have left the seat vacant and gone for a seat herself in the next election as an independant, which would be a democratic way to do it.

Or she could refuse to back the rest of the parties plays and keep crossing the floor and force Bandt to have kick off an vote with the official greens members on whether they think she should continue to represent the greens.

This still allows the Senators to vote with their conscience if required. And it gives a mechanism for the leader to potetnially remove someone who is voting against the party interest constantly but in a democratic way, because the population as a whole voted for the party on the senate sheet, not the individual.

Ok, now everyone tell me all the ways this would fail lol.

​

Edit: Bunch of interesting points of view guys, apprecaite the discussion :)

I still think that Thorpe essentially doesnt have the mandate of the people that voted for her in a "real" sense even if she does in a techincal sense, and i think the current system allows that. And i think her getting 5 years of being untouchable really gets my goat.

Maybe if you leave your party your seat automatically goes up for re-election next election regardless of your remaining term?